This article merely summarizes and links to several recent LinkedIn posts by ip fray, so as to provide a convenient overview for readers of the website and email subscribers.
1. Two new decisions by the Court of Appeal (Friday and Sunday)
- 10x Genomics appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction, but after Curio’s responsive pleading withdrew that appeal. 10x will have to bear the costs of the PI appeal. 10x would have preferred to make those costs subject to the ultimate outcome of the main proceedings.
- ICPillar was ordered to give security to a dozen Arm entities, but appealed because it believes it has an insurance policy that provides sufficient coverage. Due to a filing in the wrong workflow and a CMS issue, service of the unredacted version of the insurance policy got delayed. The 15-day period for Arm’s response begins with the day that its counsel received the unredacted document.
2. Important question for infringement standard: what if the solution taught by the patent works out only in some (but not all) scenarios?
In Panasonic’s disputes with Xiaomi and OPPO, a declared-essential patent is about avoiding overlaps of frequency bands, but according to defendants, such overlaps are not consistently and reliably avoided. German case law has the Rangierkatze (“shunting trolley”) standard. Will the UPC adopt that one or a different doctrine? And how will this work in connection with standard-essential patents?
3. Case management concerning redacted FRAND pleadings: Munich/Mannheim
In a Panasonic v. Xiaomi case, the Munich LD decided to set different pleading schedules for the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim as the infringement part involves a FRAND defense and delays due to redacted confidential business information. By comparison, in another case involving the same players, the Mannheim LD separated FRAND from all technical (infringement and revocation) pleadings.
4. New cases
4.1 Three new Dusseldorf cases
Atlas Global v. Vantiva, Labrador v. bioMérieux and a case in which the court had authorized service of process at an Amsterdam trade show (June 26, 2024 ip fray article): M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v. Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi.
4.2 New Munich case
Phoenix Contact, whose preliminary injunction request in the Munich I Regional Court against HARTING resulted in important clarification by the European Court of Justice, is now suing INDUSTRIA LOMBARDA MATERIALE ELETTRICO I.L.M.E. SOCIETA PER AZIONI (“ILME”) and its German subsidiary ILME GmbH Germany.
5. Upcoming hearings
5.1 This month’s appellate hearings
This month’s Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal hearings:
July 16: AYLO v. DISH Network Technologies and Sling TV
July 17: Advanced Bionics v. MED-EL
July 18: Meril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences
July 24: Mala Technologies v. Nokia
5.2 This week’s preliminary injunction hearings
The Hague LD on Tuesday (July 9): Amycel v. unnamed individual defendant from Poland
Munich LD on Friday (July 12): Syngenta v. Sumi Agro